[atlarge-discuss] top down or bottom up?

["Ron Sherwood" <sherwood@islands.vi>]

Dear Richard and Norbert:

    Forgive me if I have misunderstood something, but the debate seems to be
over which of the two subject line approaches (top down or bottom up) is the
most likely to succeed.

    Surely, if the ICANN top-down ALOC / RALO method of providing end user
participation is successful, then it will embrace and include participation
by any organization that is suitably organized from the bottom up. That must
include the icann-at-large membership who are skeptical of abandoning their
separatist beliefs.

    If, on the other hand, the ICANN / ALOC / RALO method fails due to an
unwillingness to accept a bottom-up process, then the separatist
icann-at-large group should be in a position to simply move around ICANN or
to fill the void that they have left.

    The most likely scenario is that the two will merge eventually, and that
the ICANN that we know will become the ICANN that we want... simply BECAUSE
icann-at-large became a powerful bottom-up organization and was able to
carry the will of the end user.

    I believe that the wisest users will be those that participate in both
organizations and carefully judge their policies and receptiveness to user
input.

Ron


----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Henderson" <richardhenderson@ntlworld.com>
To: "Norbert Klein" <nhklein@gmx.net>
Cc: <sherwood@islands.vi>; <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 4:05 PM
Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] Fw: Resignation


> Hello Norbert
>
> I have interspaced some *****RH: responses***** below, and thank you for
> your comments.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Norbert Klein <nhklein@gmx.net>
> To: Richard Henderson <richardhenderson@ntlworld.com>
> Cc: <sherwood@islands.vi>; <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 7:29 PM
> Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] Fw: Resignation
>
>
> > > Excellent! I entirely agree with Ron's analysis. This is exactly how I
> see
> > > it. I am happy to envisage two approaches, and I am happy to keep a
foot
> > > in
> > > both camps, but I personally think that many of our membership want to
> > > remain clearly independent of ICANN, to create some clear space from
it,
> >
> > Yes, I see this - but I have not yet understood what then is the goal,
> apart
> > from not being related to ICANN.
>
> *****RH: Norbert, I can't speak clearly for others without some process of
> balloting their opinion on a number of questions. However the goals I
would
> like to see pursued include:
> 1. Creating a worldwide network of internet users who can campaign for
> democratic control of the net, both from the platform of a global
> organisation and from its regional/national/local/issue-based associated
> groups. This network to be "in opposition" to ICANN and separate from it.
> ICANN should be expelled from our processes.
> 2. The creation of an 'umbrella' (other than the ICANN Ralo's) where a
> coalition of user groups can network and develop a voice on a range of
> issues related to DNS administration and policy, DNS future shape,
> democratic structures (bottom-up), and issues of internet freedom... many
> many more issues. Not all groups in the coalition would prioritise the
same
> issues, but they would agree on enough to want to support such a
coalition,
> drawn together under an independent umbrella.
> 3. The growth and development of a democratic internet users movement
wholly
> independent and free of ICANN, and creating its own structures and
> initiatives. This independent users group would, of course, be one of a
> multiplicity of similar groups in coalition/alliance. I forsee the
emergence
> of exciting new bottom-up democratic processes and movements, built around
> the technology, which may circumvent some of the inertia, spin and
duplicity
> of "old-fashioned" democratic systems which claim to speak for the people,
> but where power is often out of the reach of the people.
> 4. A specific and significant goal (among others) would be that the
Internet
> (which exists and is supported by millions of ordinary people) would
> ultimately be controlled by these people themselves, through the
development
> of democratic processes, and the administration of the roots and DNS would
> one day pass from "the few" to "the many". There is NOTHING in ICANN's
> conduct to suggest that their goals and their structures are designed to
> achieve that.*****
>
> >
> > > and
> > > I think (as Wolfgang has suggested in his own analysis) that it's time
> to
> > > ballot the entire membership on a range of questions. However, to
avoid
> > > "rigged" questions, I think advocates of an ICANN-RALO based org
> >
> > There is this position, yes - but that is not what I saw as the goal of
> the
> > At-Large effort from the beginning: then it was to have an opinion and a
> goal
> > how we would like to see ICANN moving - in spite of how the present
board
> > majority sees their goals.
>
> *****RH: I admit this is a very fair point, Norbert. And I see no reason
why
> you and others like yourselves should not continue to follow your own
goals
> and convictions. I think it is indeed true that quite a lot of people
> perceived the organisation this way. However, I believe that a lot of
other
> people take a more radical line. Both views deserve respect. Both views
can
> be pursued. Whether they are both pursued through ONE organisation or
> through TWO, I really don't know. I think that the membership should
define
> this for themselves.*****
> >
> > > and I
> > > think advocates of an independent At Large mobilising and organising
> > > outside
> > > ICANN's structures should phrase THEIR proposals in a form members can
> > > vote
> > > yes or no to.
> >
> > I am really looking forward to see the goal advocated here spelled out
> more
> > clearly, beyond "being outside" of ICANN.
>
> *****RH: Please see above, but also please refer to many statements I have
> posted on these lists, and also read statements from other members too.
The
> ones listed above are SOME goals, but not an exclusive list.*****
> >
> > > Let people choose what orgs they want to support...
> >
> > No problem with that - but having started the first connection from
> Cambodia
> > in 1994 and always being dependent - in some aspects of our operation of
> the
> > Cambodian NGO Open Forum on the structures of ICANN - I was hoping that
> > there would be a stronger At-Large, deeply concerned for our information
> > infrastructure (which is much more than hardware), and therefore I was
> always hoping
> > for an At-Large that is targeting its energy on ICANN becoming clearly a
> > service agency for the Internet and its many users.
>
> *****RH: A reasonable point... you need to work within ICANN's processes
and
> therefore you want to maintain and try to develop the At Large voice
within
> those processes. I don't doubt the integrity of that goal. I DO doubt its
> ultimate success, and therefore I believe in developing an alternative
> strategy outside ICANN to ultimately outflank it, with its own identity
and
> the development of its own worldwide structures, democratic processes
(let's
> not forget how anti-democratic ICANN has proved to be), and its own voice
> for the At Large (not overseen and manouevred by Denise Michel but wholly
> outside all those shenanigans).
>
> So I think YOU should pursue YOUR goal as you see fit, and others can
pursue
> THEIR goal as THEY see fit. If you succeed inside ICANN, well great! I do
> not believe that will happen, sadly. So maybe the REAL "At Large" as I see
> it - a wholly independent At Large, self-administered in a worldwide
> democratic structure, not as ICANN defines and dictates - will achieve its
> goals in the course of time, as roots multiply, as ICANN loses its grip
and
> control, as democratic processes are seen to be the sane way forward for
> everyone's internet.*****
> >
> > Norbert
> >
> > --
> > Norbert Klein
> > Open Forum of Cambodia
> > Phnom Penh/Cambodia
> >
> >
> *****RH: Once again, thank you Norbert for your fair and relevant
> comments.*****
>
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de